David A. Harris

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The first offence involved 95.5 grams of cocaine.

While on release for the first charge, the accused was found in possession of 288.5 grams of cocaine.

The Crown sought 4 to 5 years imprisonment, while the defence sought 18 months to 2 years less a day.

The court sentenced the accused to a total of 48 months imprisonment (18 months for the first count and 30 months consecutive for the second count), noting the seriousness of committing a second, larger trafficking offence while on release.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

He was arrested on September 28, 2011, with 36.5 grams of cocaine and admitted to possessing an additional 59 grams at his residence.

While awaiting resolution of those charges, he was found with 288.5 grams of cocaine on February 16, 2012.

The court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 48 months imprisonment, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order, firearms prohibition, and forfeiture order.

The court balanced the mitigating factors of the accused's youth, lack of prior record, remorse, and participation in counselling against the serious nature of the offences and the aggravating factor of reoffending while awaiting trial.

The accused brought an application to stay criminal charges (assault with a weapon, assault, unlawful confinement, and criminal harassment) pursuant to section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay was approximately 19 months from charge to trial date.

The court found that while the accused and defence counsel had requested most adjournments to pursue settlement discussions, the delay from the charge date to when counsel was ready to set a trial date (June 11, 2012) was treated as neutral time.

The post-trial-readiness delay of approximately 8.5 months fell within the Supreme Court guideline of 8-10 months for provincial courts.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with one count of sexual assault against S.L. (alleged to have occurred between July 15 and August 15, 2010) and one count of sexual assault, one count of invitation to sexual touching, and two counts of sexual interference against S.O. (alleged to have occurred on September 4, 2010).

The charges were tried together as the facts overlapped.

The accused pleaded not guilty to all charges.

The court heard evidence from the two alleged victims, a defence witness, the accused, and a friend of the accused.

The court found the evidence of the two alleged victims credible and consistent, while finding significant inconsistencies and credibility issues with the accused's testimony and defence witnesses.

The court convicted the accused of sexual assault against S.L., sexual assault against S.O., sexual interference against S.O., and invitation to sexual touching against S.O. One count of sexual interference was dismissed as it was not a separate act.

The accused pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing the indictable offence of sexual interference against an eight-year-old child.

The Crown sought imprisonment for four to five years with ancillary orders including a section 161 order, DNA order, SOIRA compliance, and firearms prohibition.

Defence counsel sought imprisonment for two years less one day followed by probation.

The court imposed a sentence of four years imprisonment (46 months plus two months pre-sentence custody credit) with ancillary orders including a 20-year section 161 order, lifetime SOIRA compliance, and a 10-year firearms prohibition.

The court balanced the extremely serious nature of the offence, including the home invasion and sexual assault of a young child, against the accused's youth, first-offender status, genuine remorse, guilty plea, and rehabilitation potential.

Four accused were convicted of intentionally or recklessly causing damage by fire to a residential property on August 22, 2010, knowing or being reckless as to whether the property was inhabited.

The victim's residence was firebombed with Molotov cocktails in what was characterized as a crime for hire based on false allegations that the victim was a pedophile.

The offenders caused approximately $10,000 in damage.

One accused also faced charges of disguising his face with intent to commit an indictable offence and breaching probation.

Another accused faced an additional charge of attempting to obstruct justice.

The court imposed penitentiary sentences ranging from two to four and one-half years, with the lead offender receiving the longest sentence.

The court emphasized the seriousness of arson, particularly when targeting an occupied residence, and applied principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The accused pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography and careless storage of ammunition.

The Crown sought imprisonment of four to six months followed by three years probation.

Defence counsel sought 90 days intermittent imprisonment.

The court imposed 90 days intermittent imprisonment (served weekends over approximately 30 weeks), three years probation with strict conditions including house arrest during the intermittent sentence, a DNA order, Sex Offender Information Registration Act compliance for 10 years, a 10-year prohibition on accessing children under 16, forfeiture of computer equipment and media, a $500 fine for the ammunition charge, and a 10-year firearms prohibition.

The court balanced the seriousness of the offence against mitigating factors including the accused's otherwise good character, genuine remorse, engagement in counselling, guilty plea, and impact on his family.

Following the dismissal of an appeal regarding a municipal election compliance audit, the added parties (the candidates) sought costs against the appellant.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that she was a public interest litigant immune from costs, finding she continued to pursue abandoned and technical allegations on appeal.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing them at $12,600 for the three represented candidates and $1,000 for the self-represented candidate.

This is a costs decision following the dismissal of an appeal from a Compliance Audit Committee decision.

The appellant sought a compliance audit of campaign finances for four municipal candidates under the Municipal Elections Act.

The Committee dismissed the application, and the appellant appealed to the Ontario Court of Justice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The added parties (the four candidates) sought costs awards.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding that the usual practice of awarding costs to successful parties should apply.

The court rejected arguments that the appellant was a public interest litigant and found the added parties' participation in the appeal was necessary to defend their reputations against public allegations.

The Crown objected to the introduction of certain evidence on the basis that it offended the collateral fact rule.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a 12-year-old complainant.

The defence sought to introduce evidence to impeach the credibility of the complainant's mother and support the theory that the allegations were false and made to deflect responsibility from the mother's own inappropriate conduct toward the accused's autistic son.

The court considered three categories of proposed evidence and applied the collateral fact rule and its exceptions.

The accused was convicted of production of marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking following trial.

At sentencing, the Crown sought imprisonment of 18 months to two years less a day followed by probation, along with ancillary orders including a firearms prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture.

The defence sought a blended sentence combining intermittent and conditional components.

The court rejected the conditional sentence option, finding that while the statutory prerequisites were met, a conditional sentence would not be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

The court imposed one year imprisonment on each charge concurrently, followed by three years probation, along with the requested ancillary orders.

Two aboriginal offenders were sentenced following guilty pleas to serious offences.

The first offender pleaded guilty to possession of stolen motor vehicles, operating vehicles while disqualified, robbery, and use of an imitation firearm in commission of an indictable offence.

The second offender pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm and failing to stop for police pursuit causing bodily harm.

The court applied Gladue principles regarding sentencing of aboriginal offenders while emphasizing denunciation and deterrence given the seriousness of the offences and prior criminal records.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with a demand to provide breath samples into an approved screening device.

The court considered two issues: whether the demand was made "forthwith" as required by the Criminal Code, and whether the officer had reasonable suspicion that the accused had alcohol in his body.

The court found that while the officer detected an odour of alcohol on the accused's breath and the accused admitted to consuming one beer hours earlier, the officer's subjective state of mind did not meet the reasonable suspicion standard.

The officer appeared to be seeking to determine whether the accused had any alcohol in his system to contravene the conditions of his G2 driver's licence, rather than acting on a pre-existing reasonable suspicion.

The accused was acquitted.

An elector applied to the Compliance Audit Committee for a compliance audit of four municipal election candidates' campaign finances, alleging various contraventions of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.

The Committee dismissed the application.

On appeal, the court considered the appropriate standard of review, the meaning of "reasonable grounds," and whether the candidates had contravened the Act.

The court found that the Committee was entitled to deference as an expert body and applied a reasonableness standard.

The court upheld the Committee's decision, finding no reasonable grounds to believe the candidates had contravened the Act, as they had promptly returned improper contributions upon becoming aware of them and any filing errors were unintentional and did not materially affect the public's ability to review campaign finances.

The accused, a foreign national, pleaded guilty to assaulting his child with a hockey stick.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence, while the accused sought a conditional discharge to avoid deportation.

The court noted that while a conditional discharge for such an offence is extremely rare following 2005 Criminal Code amendments, the accused had already served 36 days in pre-sentence custody.

The court granted a conditional discharge, reasoning that it was in the public interest to allow the family to remain in Canada where the child could be protected by the terms of a probation order, rather than facing deportation to their home country.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences for operating a quarry without a licence contrary to the Aggregate Resources Act.

They raised several grounds of appeal, including that the corporate appellant was unrepresented, the search warrant should have been quashed, the trial judge improperly classified the offence as absolute liability, there was an apprehension of bias, and the trial judge improperly altered the transcript.

The appeal court dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the individual appellant properly represented the corporation, the search warrant review was handled correctly, and although the trial judge erred in classifying the offence as absolute liability, no miscarriage of justice occurred because no due diligence defence was advanced.

The court found no bias and held that the transcript alterations did not affect the outcome.

The sentence appeal was partially allowed on consent of the Crown to correct a minor miscalculation in the days of operation, reducing the total fines from $402,000 to $383,000, but the court otherwise found the substantial fines fit given the deliberate and prolonged nature of the offences.